I plan to vote against this amendment. I want to just make two points: one, the gentleman from New York's argument is very good if, in fact, U.S. Institute of Peace was simply another think tank. If it were, then why shouldn't they compete like other think tanks do for projects and contracts through the discretionary funds of the appropriate agencies and decided on that basis? But the U.S. Institute of Peace is not just the Brookings Institute or the Heritage Foundation. It's really more of a ``do'' tank than a think tank. It engages very specifically in projects, implementing projects that have direct benefits for our forces and for our diplomats based on their charter. Secondly, if we're going to zero out the U.S. Institute of Peace because it's no longer necessary because it isn't worthy of a direct earmark, then repeal the legislation that created it. There wasn't legislation that created Heritage or Brookings or American Enterprise Institute. These were private organizations. The U.S. Institute of Peace was created by legislation, passed by both Houses.
Howard Berman: “I plan to vote against this amendment. I want to just make two points: one, the gentleman from New York's argument is…”
On the recordFebruary 16, 2011
Editor's note · Context
The speaker is addressing the importance and unique role of the U.S. Institute of Peace in comparison to other think tanks.
Share
More from Howard Berman
Sep 11, 2012
I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlelady from California (Mrs. Davis).
Nov 16, 2012
I think this is a very historic piece of bipartisan legislation. Just as Jackson-Vanik became a tool to deal with one aspect of a horrible set of policies by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, we now, using the Magnitsky legislation…
Nov 16, 2012
I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes. Mr. McGOVERN. Madam Speaker, I would like to enter into a colloquy with the majority and minority floor managers--the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Burton) and the gentleman from California (Mr…





